Gold - Man denied access to his gold at Swiss bank: "The gold was not there": "A client of a major Swiss bank was recently refused access to his physical gold and had to hire attorneys and threaten to expose the bank publicly before finally getting it back in his own hands, according to Jim Rickards of Omnis.
'My inference is that the gold was not there,' Rickards told King World News. 'The bank had to scramble, go out and find it somewhere before they could make good delivery.'"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Oooops!
Looks like this bank was "Spoofing Gold." The illegal, fraudulent practice of selling gold on paper, with the gold allegedly stored in bank's vault, when actually, bank does not buy the gold, instead invests it for own use. Usually, the gold buyer never asks for delivery and sells at some point in the future, which sends buyer his profit or loss, without ever having purchased any gold. The same practice is prevalent in the silver market.
Another shady practice is "Gold Leasing" where the bank takes some portion of the buyer's money and rents or leases gold from a broker for pennies, without taking possession, with a contract to purchase the gold or silver sometime in the future. Again, if the buyer requests delivery, the bank has to scramble and try to get a hold of the gold from the holder.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Network Marketing, Back to the Future!
Success in applying word of mouth marketing in "traditional" businesses.
Even sellers of large purchases, now, are benefiting from word of mouth . When you consider what kind of car to buy, where to live, how to choose a physician or a general contractor or a piano teacher--all of those decisions are heavily influenced by people you know and trust, friend, relatives, colleagues.
In fact, in many ways, the search paradigm isn’t the way people do things. [Part of that is because] most of the information on the Internet has an agenda, so it’s very difficult to get truly objective data.
So the best research is from people you know who’ve experienced it. You know their only agenda is to help you because they’re your friend. Social media helps make that process really efficient.
Althernative health products and procedures stand to be big gainers from this phenomenom
Unlike products that are commodities and price-sensitive, like potatoes and onions, which everyone knows well and can instantly determine what is a good deal and what is not; health care product consumers need a more extensive education and price justification. This education is best provided by trusted friends, relatives and co-workers as opposed to traditional, impersonal marketing methods.
However, the average person who wants to sell innovative, effective alternative medical devices, supplements and therapies and is not a nurse, doctor or other recognized health professional; would do best with a personal introduction to his prospects by a health professional.
How is this to be accomplished? Via a membership website for sufferers of diseases best handled with new alternative therapies, with a professional discussing or introducing alternative health measures.
It could also be handled by a third party newsletter or newspaper, with the marketer following up and facilitating the education of the prospects, who will buy or not buy based on how well the educational process had worked.
Network marketers have an advantage in this new world of social marketing, this is what they do.
However, they must aspire to a new level of professional salesmanship, becoming a health coach, familiar with the diseases her product helps and becoming an educational guide, assisting in the education of her prospects.
If you would like to be introduced to marketing aids that assist in marketing health products, please feel free to contact me for more info.
Bill Young, Publisher, Apple Health News\
646-961-3818
Even sellers of large purchases, now, are benefiting from word of mouth . When you consider what kind of car to buy, where to live, how to choose a physician or a general contractor or a piano teacher--all of those decisions are heavily influenced by people you know and trust, friend, relatives, colleagues.
In fact, in many ways, the search paradigm isn’t the way people do things. [Part of that is because] most of the information on the Internet has an agenda, so it’s very difficult to get truly objective data.
So the best research is from people you know who’ve experienced it. You know their only agenda is to help you because they’re your friend. Social media helps make that process really efficient.
Althernative health products and procedures stand to be big gainers from this phenomenom
Unlike products that are commodities and price-sensitive, like potatoes and onions, which everyone knows well and can instantly determine what is a good deal and what is not; health care product consumers need a more extensive education and price justification. This education is best provided by trusted friends, relatives and co-workers as opposed to traditional, impersonal marketing methods.
However, the average person who wants to sell innovative, effective alternative medical devices, supplements and therapies and is not a nurse, doctor or other recognized health professional; would do best with a personal introduction to his prospects by a health professional.
How is this to be accomplished? Via a membership website for sufferers of diseases best handled with new alternative therapies, with a professional discussing or introducing alternative health measures.
It could also be handled by a third party newsletter or newspaper, with the marketer following up and facilitating the education of the prospects, who will buy or not buy based on how well the educational process had worked.
Network marketers have an advantage in this new world of social marketing, this is what they do.
However, they must aspire to a new level of professional salesmanship, becoming a health coach, familiar with the diseases her product helps and becoming an educational guide, assisting in the education of her prospects.
If you would like to be introduced to marketing aids that assist in marketing health products, please feel free to contact me for more info.
Bill Young, Publisher, Apple Health News\
646-961-3818
Housing Disaster 2.0
If you thought the housing debacle was bad, wait till you see what 2.0 has in store!
The intransigence of Wall st to help homeowners resolve their problems is now coming back to bite them, HARD!
The mortgage backed securities that are the touchstone of the Trillion dollar securitization scam are mainly worthless, despite the industry's obfuscation. The reason is that most of the mortgages underlying the securities are underwater, worth less than the housing backing them up.
No one is willing to acknowledge this devastating fact. But remember the real estate boom? Property values were rising at 10-20% annually, but all the while, home equity was actually falling. Historically, the average home had 50% equity, but during the boom, because of the low-no down payment purchases and the cash out refi frenzy, the average home had only 25% equity by the peak of the boom in 2005-6.
Up to now, home prices have fallen 25-30%, with no end in sight, which means that the average home at this point has negative equity!
Home prices will continue to fall for the foreseeable future because of the humongous number of homes in the foreclosure pipeline. Unemployment is now driving even good credit, 30 year fixed mortgage holders to default on their mortgage payments. Experience has shown that anyone who is 3 months or more behind in their mortgage payments, will never catch up and will become a foreclosure statistic.
To that number you have to add a substantial number of people who are current on their payments, but are significantly underwater. If you paid $425,000 for your home 4 years ago, with 10% down, meaning you have a $383,500 mortgage, but the value of your home is now only $295,000, you, like many similarly situated homeowners, will seriously consider walking away, or "Strategically Default" on your mortgage. Others would not consider it on moral grounds.
Think about it. Could you buy a similar home or even a better one for the same or smaller mortgage payment? How much would it cost to rent a similar or better home? Do you really want to throw good money, your retirement, your child's educational account, into a home that may not recover its value for years and years?
As of this writing, up to 40% of foreclosure sales are the result of home owners walking away from their mortgages.
Finally, the pool of potential home buyers shrinks by the day. Unemployed people are automatically excluded from the ranks of home buyers. More and more people's credit scores are dropping because of financial hardship, while at the same time banks are demanding higher and higher credit scores, with 750-780 not uncommon. Another thing the banks are demanding are bigger down payments, with many demanding 20% down, which with total acquisition costs bring the required cash to buy a house up to 25% or more. Not many first time buyers have that and trade up buyers are few because either they cannot sell their homes because they are under water or their credit has been dinged because of missed mortgage payments.
And, of course just over the horizon are higher interest rates as the Fed QE2's inflationary impact spreads from stocks and commodities to the broader economy. Higher mortgage interest rates will be just another nail in the housing market's coffin.
The intransigence of Wall st to help homeowners resolve their problems is now coming back to bite them, HARD!
The mortgage backed securities that are the touchstone of the Trillion dollar securitization scam are mainly worthless, despite the industry's obfuscation. The reason is that most of the mortgages underlying the securities are underwater, worth less than the housing backing them up.
No one is willing to acknowledge this devastating fact. But remember the real estate boom? Property values were rising at 10-20% annually, but all the while, home equity was actually falling. Historically, the average home had 50% equity, but during the boom, because of the low-no down payment purchases and the cash out refi frenzy, the average home had only 25% equity by the peak of the boom in 2005-6.
Up to now, home prices have fallen 25-30%, with no end in sight, which means that the average home at this point has negative equity!
Home prices will continue to fall for the foreseeable future because of the humongous number of homes in the foreclosure pipeline. Unemployment is now driving even good credit, 30 year fixed mortgage holders to default on their mortgage payments. Experience has shown that anyone who is 3 months or more behind in their mortgage payments, will never catch up and will become a foreclosure statistic.
To that number you have to add a substantial number of people who are current on their payments, but are significantly underwater. If you paid $425,000 for your home 4 years ago, with 10% down, meaning you have a $383,500 mortgage, but the value of your home is now only $295,000, you, like many similarly situated homeowners, will seriously consider walking away, or "Strategically Default" on your mortgage. Others would not consider it on moral grounds.
Think about it. Could you buy a similar home or even a better one for the same or smaller mortgage payment? How much would it cost to rent a similar or better home? Do you really want to throw good money, your retirement, your child's educational account, into a home that may not recover its value for years and years?
As of this writing, up to 40% of foreclosure sales are the result of home owners walking away from their mortgages.
Finally, the pool of potential home buyers shrinks by the day. Unemployed people are automatically excluded from the ranks of home buyers. More and more people's credit scores are dropping because of financial hardship, while at the same time banks are demanding higher and higher credit scores, with 750-780 not uncommon. Another thing the banks are demanding are bigger down payments, with many demanding 20% down, which with total acquisition costs bring the required cash to buy a house up to 25% or more. Not many first time buyers have that and trade up buyers are few because either they cannot sell their homes because they are under water or their credit has been dinged because of missed mortgage payments.
And, of course just over the horizon are higher interest rates as the Fed QE2's inflationary impact spreads from stocks and commodities to the broader economy. Higher mortgage interest rates will be just another nail in the housing market's coffin.
Monday, December 13, 2010
John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant/appellee - 680 F.2d 1239 - Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions
John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant/appellee - 680 F.2d 1239 - Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions: "On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm. dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm."
Further... Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations
Further... Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations
Friday, December 10, 2010
Video--Insider Blows The Whistle on Wall St Financial Industry Fraud
Janet Tavakoli, Wall St insider, spills the beans on her greedy colleagues. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA20Am0pwtA
_________________________________________________________________________________
Bill's Comments
_________________________________________________________________________________
We are well in the grasp of the Oligarchs who own the FED and control our money and therefore Every facet of our country.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Bill's Comments
_________________________________________________________________________________
We are well in the grasp of the Oligarchs who own the FED and control our money and therefore Every facet of our country.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Housing prices to take another huge dive
As I wrote back in 2006, the impending collapse of the housing market was imminent. I predicted that it would brink down the entire economy, considering housings importance to the whole financial system.
Well the housing market did collapse, but the financial system did not collapse, yet.
Back then in 2006, I had no idea of the drastic, immoral and probably illegal methods the Fed would continence by the banks to avert such an event.
The Fed has printed Trillions of dollars to prop up the financial system. Wall st is inflated with government money used to purchase stocks. Bank's balance sheets are top heavy with funny money. The Fed and their cronies in the Obama administration have allowed the banks to hide the true, imploded value of their assets, especially the toxic mortgage backed securities.
I had said in my 2006 article that Joe and Mary Sixpack's ability to pay their mortgage payments were the key to the house of cards the fraudsters in Wall st and the banks had built and it still is.
However, with the drastic decline in the value of their homes, Joe and Mary have little to no incentive to pay their mortgages if the value of their homes is less than the mortgage amounts.
This is a problem I believe has been disquised and lied about. Ten years ago, the average homeowner had 50% equity in their home. At the height of the insanity, average equity had fallen to 30%.
As a result of the housing crash so far, home prices have fallen by 30% and more in certain hard hit areas. Tell me that only 25% of homeowners in Nevada, Arizona, Florida and California are underwater. Perhaps 25% at most are Above water!
The Banksters have been successful in blocking investigations into the rampant fraud that underlined so much of the housing markets, on originations and now of the foreclosure side.
But now it is all coming to light with the investigations into who owns the mortgages and therefore has the legal right to foreclose the mortgage.
Here are a look at some of the possible scenarios:
Investors in securities may demand Put Backs, refunds of the investors money paid for the security based on their fraudulent representations on the underlying securities;
Homeowners suing to get their money back who have made years of mortgage payments to an entity that had no right to those payments
Successful home owner defenses against foreclosure of their homes because of the bank's inability to prove their ownership of mortgage
Title companies refusing to guarantee title to new lenders and borrowers
A collapse of the Trillion dollar securitization game.
Short to medium term, look for housing prices to nosedive as the market grinds to a halt and deflation in the broader financial markets takes over, despite another Trillion or so of QE2, ("Qualitative easing" by the Fed in 2011.)
However, look for gold and silver to sky rocket in the face of the resulting financial chaos. In fact, I expect that you will be able to buy a home with a 1,000 OZ bar of silver, during this period, just like you could in 1982!
Long term, look for ginormous inflation when the Fed figures out how to beat deflation. Then the complete collapse of the financial economy!
Well the housing market did collapse, but the financial system did not collapse, yet.
Back then in 2006, I had no idea of the drastic, immoral and probably illegal methods the Fed would continence by the banks to avert such an event.
The Fed has printed Trillions of dollars to prop up the financial system. Wall st is inflated with government money used to purchase stocks. Bank's balance sheets are top heavy with funny money. The Fed and their cronies in the Obama administration have allowed the banks to hide the true, imploded value of their assets, especially the toxic mortgage backed securities.
I had said in my 2006 article that Joe and Mary Sixpack's ability to pay their mortgage payments were the key to the house of cards the fraudsters in Wall st and the banks had built and it still is.
However, with the drastic decline in the value of their homes, Joe and Mary have little to no incentive to pay their mortgages if the value of their homes is less than the mortgage amounts.
This is a problem I believe has been disquised and lied about. Ten years ago, the average homeowner had 50% equity in their home. At the height of the insanity, average equity had fallen to 30%.
As a result of the housing crash so far, home prices have fallen by 30% and more in certain hard hit areas. Tell me that only 25% of homeowners in Nevada, Arizona, Florida and California are underwater. Perhaps 25% at most are Above water!
The Banksters have been successful in blocking investigations into the rampant fraud that underlined so much of the housing markets, on originations and now of the foreclosure side.
But now it is all coming to light with the investigations into who owns the mortgages and therefore has the legal right to foreclose the mortgage.
Here are a look at some of the possible scenarios:
Investors in securities may demand Put Backs, refunds of the investors money paid for the security based on their fraudulent representations on the underlying securities;
Homeowners suing to get their money back who have made years of mortgage payments to an entity that had no right to those payments
Successful home owner defenses against foreclosure of their homes because of the bank's inability to prove their ownership of mortgage
Title companies refusing to guarantee title to new lenders and borrowers
A collapse of the Trillion dollar securitization game.
Short to medium term, look for housing prices to nosedive as the market grinds to a halt and deflation in the broader financial markets takes over, despite another Trillion or so of QE2, ("Qualitative easing" by the Fed in 2011.)
However, look for gold and silver to sky rocket in the face of the resulting financial chaos. In fact, I expect that you will be able to buy a home with a 1,000 OZ bar of silver, during this period, just like you could in 1982!
Long term, look for ginormous inflation when the Fed figures out how to beat deflation. Then the complete collapse of the financial economy!
Friday, April 2, 2010
It Pays to Fight Your Creditors!
Take the following two cases of debtors being sued by creditors:
Second Case: Ruth M. Owens, a disabled Cleveland woman, was sued by Discover Bank in 2004 for an unpaid credit card. Ms. Owens offered a defense, sending a handwritten note to the court.
“After paying my monthly utilities, there is no money left except a little food money and sometimes it isn’t enough,” she wrote.
Robert Triozzi, a judge at the time, heard the case. He found that over a period of several years, Ms. Owens had paid nearly $3,500 on an original balance of $1,900.
But Discover was suing her for $5,564, mostly for late fees, compound interest, penalties and other charges. He called Discover’s actions “unconscionable” and threw the case out.
Going to court is no guarantee of victory, of course. Consumers who do go are sometimes intercepted by collection lawyers, who press them to sign papers settling without a trial.
These settlements may be against the interests of debtors, but they sign anyway.
“We’re signing off on a lot of settlement agreements where we shake our heads and ask, ‘Why is this person settling to this?’ ” Judge Lipman said.
Second Case:
For the working poor, losing a lawsuit can mean disaster.
The case of Sidney Jones shows how punishing the system can be. In January 2001, Mr. Jones, 45, a maintenance worker from California Crossroads, Va., took out a $4,097 personal loan from Beneficial Virginia, a subprime lender now owned by HSBC, the big bank.
He fell behind, and Beneficial sued. Mr. Jones did not appear in court.
“I just thought they were going to take what I owed,” he said.
By default, Beneficial won a judgment of $4,750, plus $900 in lawyers’ fees, with the debt accruing interest at 27.55 percent until paid in full. The bank started garnishing his wages in March 2003.
Over the next six years, the bank deducted more than $10,000 from Mr. Jones’s paychecks, but he made little headway on his debt.
According to a court order secured by Beneficial’s lawyers last spring, he still owed the company $3,965, a sum nearly equal to the original loan amount. Mr. Jones, who did not graduate from high school, was baffled.
“Where did all this money go that I paid them?” he said. Dale Pittman, a consumer law lawyer in Petersburg, Va., took Mr. Jones’s case without charge, and found that all but $134 of his payments had gone toward interest, fees and court costs.
“It’s a perfectly legal result under Virginia law,” Mr.Pittman said.
***********************************************************************************
So, which way will you go? Lay down like a dog and get run over or stand up and defend yourself?
If you need help, contact me, Bill Young. I am a former bank loan officer and have many clients who have been able to Beat the Banks!
Call for a free consultation on your situation.
Bill Young, Personal Financial Consultant
646-961-3818
MORE FROM NYTIMES.COM
Current DateTime: 09:22:23 02 Apr 2010
LinksList Documentid: 22528754
BusinessDealBook BlogSmall Business News
A 1968 federal law exempts 75 percent of a worker’s wages, or 30 times the minimum wage per week, from being taken in garnishment — whichever is less. But increases in the minimum wage have failed to keep up with inflation.
As federal law stands now, just $217.50 a week is exempt from seizure. (A few states set higher cutoffs.)
The working poor “have difficulties maintaining payments on life’s necessities with their full paycheck,” said Angela Riccetti, a lawyer with Atlanta Legal Aid who represents indigent clients whose wages are being garnished.
“You lose 25 percent of it and everything folds.” For Leann Weaver, the woman at the grocery store, Capital One’s lawsuit made a bad situation worse.
After being evicted from her apartment, she moved in with her grandparents. Without them, she might have ended up on the street or in a shelter, she said.
Capital One declined to comment on Ms. Weaver’s case.
“We encourage anyone facing difficulties meeting their financial obligations to contact us right away,” Tatiana Stead, a bank spokeswoman, said in an e-mail message.
Ms. Weaver said she repeatedly asked Capital One for more time to pay her $2,470 debt, but last year the bank filed suit.
She failed to show up in court, and a judgment was entered against her, swollen by $1,800 in interest and lawyers’ fees.
Then the garnishment began, almost $500 a month, or a quarter of her pay.
“I can’t even look at my paychecks any more,” she said.
This story originally appeared in the The New York Times
Topics:Recession | Debt | Credit | Economic Data | Interest Rates | Inflation | Employment | Consumers | Federal Reserve | Federal Budget (U.S.) | Economy (Global) | Economy (U.S.)PrintEmailText Size
Buzz up!1 FEATURED ECONOMY & GOVERNMENT STORIES
State Debt Woes Grow Too Big to Camouflage
The Tax Attack on America
Sarkozy Urges New World Finance Rules in US Speech
12 Comments TotalCOMMENTSRadical_1 | Apr 2, 2010 12:37 PM ET
Just proves the point "at least show up for Court". While you might not win at least you'll leave knowing how bad you're going to get screwed, where if you don't go at all, you have NO IDEA what happened, or how bad the Court ruled against you. One thing is guaranteed in a Court of Law, if you don't show up you'll NEVER WIN.
Report Abuse
mcleert | Apr 2, 2010 01:05 PM ET
But it is ok for the same banks to not pay down their toxic debts and get a free % loan from the government to do as they please !!!!
Time for a national consumer law suit against all
the too big to fail banks.
Report Abuse
WaitForTheRevision | Apr 2, 2010 02:37 PM ET
Over the next six years, the bank deducted more than $10,000 from Mr. Jones’s paychecks, but he made little headway on his debt.
According to a court order secured by Beneficial’s lawyers last spring, he still owed the company $3,965, a sum nearly equal to the original loan amount. Mr. Jones, who did not graduate from high school, was baffled
LOL "who did not graduate from high school" Why throw that in here? Reporter "So Mr. Jones you seem to be uneducated would it be safe for me to ASS-U.M.E. that you didn't finish H.S.? Ahhh.. Haaa I knew it! LOL. It sounds like a simple BK filing would have saved these people cash. But yet here they are paying 500 percent more than they should and still have balances and bad credit. Credit is a scam that is sold to us and used for control. Pay cash it's better.
Report Abuse
magnets | Apr 2, 2010 02:52 PM ET
Laws have been written to declare what is owed and to demand interest and fees as well. Then people can be harassed as long as possible and perhaps additional monies can be obtained.
Unfortunately during the process a lose-lose situation is turned into a lose-lose-win situation. The debtor still loses, the original creditor still loses and the only possible winner is a third-party that wears the debtor and the system down just to collect as much as possible on their original small bet - paid to the original creditor by the third-party.
Report Abuse
magnets | Apr 2, 2010 03:18 PM ET
Let's see, the ADULT in the room should be the judge. Neither Democratic nor Republican judges seem to understand that. (Yes, politics is unfortunately now well embedded in the court system.)
People have no respect for the system. And why should they? They know they owe the debt. They would love to pay off the debt if they could. The reason they have the debt in the first place is because it was easy - not because they could afford it. They assume the judge will be fair. Unfortunately they do not know that the judge demands respect in order to be fair. You have to show up. No wonder people have no respect for the system.
Credit Card companies should raise and lower limits on a monthly basis. 20% usage is OK. 80% usage and the card gets rejected the next time use is attempted. Fixing the problem early might mean the third-party never needs to get involved.
Which would creditors rather have in the economy, people buying things or people paying penalties and fees they can not afford? Politicians should prefer consumers over debt collectors.
Report Abuse
curlqgurl | Apr 2, 2010 04:52 PM ET
I lost my job and offered Captial One 15 percent and $100 per month on a bill of $1300.
THEY REFUSED.
Report Abuse
RayRock. | Apr 2, 2010 04:56 PM ET
Show up and ask to see the original documents that prove a debt exists and that they’re authorized to collect on it. If they cannot do that then ask the judge to order them to compensate you for your time and to find in your favor and order them to cease pursuing the claim and to prohibit them from selling the debt to anyone else. It may or may not work, but it never hurts to ask.
On another note though I see this as just the beginning as soon we’ll see lenders with foreclosed homes on their hands suing those who defaulted. The lenders will scrutinize the loan documents and if there are any lies I expect lenders to sue for fraud and probably file criminal complaints as well in the very near future.
It’s about to get ugly for debtors and it’ll take years for the cases to work their way through the courts.
Report Abuse
RUOK2 | Apr 2, 2010 05:40 PM ET
Very Very Sad, that Banks were bailed out, rescued by the Taxpayers...while the banks then increased interest rates on credit, stop making loans, and play all types of accounting games to make their book look good....and what does the consumer and small business person get....SCREWED......revolt against monster banks like Citi Group , Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase.....Put your money in a local community bank that cares for the community, and WAll Street and stock prices.......Its all very sad...
Report Abuse
gliding | Apr 2, 2010 06:02 PM ET
No court should ever allow usurious interest rates in such cases, whether the defendant shows up or not. More than 10% is questionable. More than 18% is outrageous.
And if the defendant doesn't show up, then the plaintiff should pay the legal and court fees of bringing the suit, for it poses a disincentive for abuse.
Report Abuse
HLJ63 | Apr 2, 2010 06:35 PM ET
Some people think that ignoring the problem will make it all go away, like there is this kind fairy out there who waves a wand and poof! All of your debt is gone. Sorry but that fairy only appears for the Big banks who are able to tuck away their toxic assets and debt as if they don't exist.
Report Abuse
More Comments
« First | « Previous 1 | 2 Next » | Last »
Thank you for joining our discussion. Your comment has been posted.
ADD COMMENTSPlease Sign In or Register to participate.
In order to add a comment you must click here and accept our terms and conditions.Edit Screen Name
Your Comments (Up to 1100 characters):
Please sign-in/optin or register to be able to submit comments.
Remaining characters 1100
CNBC welcomes your contribution. Please respect our community and the integrity of its participants. CNBC reserves the right to moderate and approve your comment.
Sorry, we are no longer accepting comments.PREVIEW COMMENTYour comments have not been posted yet.
Please review your submission to make sure you are comfortable with your entry.
Your Comments:
Second Case: Ruth M. Owens, a disabled Cleveland woman, was sued by Discover Bank in 2004 for an unpaid credit card. Ms. Owens offered a defense, sending a handwritten note to the court.
“After paying my monthly utilities, there is no money left except a little food money and sometimes it isn’t enough,” she wrote.
Robert Triozzi, a judge at the time, heard the case. He found that over a period of several years, Ms. Owens had paid nearly $3,500 on an original balance of $1,900.
But Discover was suing her for $5,564, mostly for late fees, compound interest, penalties and other charges. He called Discover’s actions “unconscionable” and threw the case out.
Going to court is no guarantee of victory, of course. Consumers who do go are sometimes intercepted by collection lawyers, who press them to sign papers settling without a trial.
These settlements may be against the interests of debtors, but they sign anyway.
“We’re signing off on a lot of settlement agreements where we shake our heads and ask, ‘Why is this person settling to this?’ ” Judge Lipman said.
Second Case:
For the working poor, losing a lawsuit can mean disaster.
The case of Sidney Jones shows how punishing the system can be. In January 2001, Mr. Jones, 45, a maintenance worker from California Crossroads, Va., took out a $4,097 personal loan from Beneficial Virginia, a subprime lender now owned by HSBC, the big bank.
He fell behind, and Beneficial sued. Mr. Jones did not appear in court.
“I just thought they were going to take what I owed,” he said.
By default, Beneficial won a judgment of $4,750, plus $900 in lawyers’ fees, with the debt accruing interest at 27.55 percent until paid in full. The bank started garnishing his wages in March 2003.
Over the next six years, the bank deducted more than $10,000 from Mr. Jones’s paychecks, but he made little headway on his debt.
According to a court order secured by Beneficial’s lawyers last spring, he still owed the company $3,965, a sum nearly equal to the original loan amount. Mr. Jones, who did not graduate from high school, was baffled.
“Where did all this money go that I paid them?” he said. Dale Pittman, a consumer law lawyer in Petersburg, Va., took Mr. Jones’s case without charge, and found that all but $134 of his payments had gone toward interest, fees and court costs.
“It’s a perfectly legal result under Virginia law,” Mr.Pittman said.
***********************************************************************************
So, which way will you go? Lay down like a dog and get run over or stand up and defend yourself?
If you need help, contact me, Bill Young. I am a former bank loan officer and have many clients who have been able to Beat the Banks!
Call for a free consultation on your situation.
Bill Young, Personal Financial Consultant
646-961-3818
MORE FROM NYTIMES.COM
Current DateTime: 09:22:23 02 Apr 2010
LinksList Documentid: 22528754
BusinessDealBook BlogSmall Business News
A 1968 federal law exempts 75 percent of a worker’s wages, or 30 times the minimum wage per week, from being taken in garnishment — whichever is less. But increases in the minimum wage have failed to keep up with inflation.
As federal law stands now, just $217.50 a week is exempt from seizure. (A few states set higher cutoffs.)
The working poor “have difficulties maintaining payments on life’s necessities with their full paycheck,” said Angela Riccetti, a lawyer with Atlanta Legal Aid who represents indigent clients whose wages are being garnished.
“You lose 25 percent of it and everything folds.” For Leann Weaver, the woman at the grocery store, Capital One’s lawsuit made a bad situation worse.
After being evicted from her apartment, she moved in with her grandparents. Without them, she might have ended up on the street or in a shelter, she said.
Capital One declined to comment on Ms. Weaver’s case.
“We encourage anyone facing difficulties meeting their financial obligations to contact us right away,” Tatiana Stead, a bank spokeswoman, said in an e-mail message.
Ms. Weaver said she repeatedly asked Capital One for more time to pay her $2,470 debt, but last year the bank filed suit.
She failed to show up in court, and a judgment was entered against her, swollen by $1,800 in interest and lawyers’ fees.
Then the garnishment began, almost $500 a month, or a quarter of her pay.
“I can’t even look at my paychecks any more,” she said.
This story originally appeared in the The New York Times
Topics:Recession | Debt | Credit | Economic Data | Interest Rates | Inflation | Employment | Consumers | Federal Reserve | Federal Budget (U.S.) | Economy (Global) | Economy (U.S.)PrintEmailText Size
Buzz up!1 FEATURED ECONOMY & GOVERNMENT STORIES
State Debt Woes Grow Too Big to Camouflage
The Tax Attack on America
Sarkozy Urges New World Finance Rules in US Speech
12 Comments TotalCOMMENTSRadical_1 | Apr 2, 2010 12:37 PM ET
Just proves the point "at least show up for Court". While you might not win at least you'll leave knowing how bad you're going to get screwed, where if you don't go at all, you have NO IDEA what happened, or how bad the Court ruled against you. One thing is guaranteed in a Court of Law, if you don't show up you'll NEVER WIN.
Report Abuse
mcleert | Apr 2, 2010 01:05 PM ET
But it is ok for the same banks to not pay down their toxic debts and get a free % loan from the government to do as they please !!!!
Time for a national consumer law suit against all
the too big to fail banks.
Report Abuse
WaitForTheRevision | Apr 2, 2010 02:37 PM ET
Over the next six years, the bank deducted more than $10,000 from Mr. Jones’s paychecks, but he made little headway on his debt.
According to a court order secured by Beneficial’s lawyers last spring, he still owed the company $3,965, a sum nearly equal to the original loan amount. Mr. Jones, who did not graduate from high school, was baffled
LOL "who did not graduate from high school" Why throw that in here? Reporter "So Mr. Jones you seem to be uneducated would it be safe for me to ASS-U.M.E. that you didn't finish H.S.? Ahhh.. Haaa I knew it! LOL. It sounds like a simple BK filing would have saved these people cash. But yet here they are paying 500 percent more than they should and still have balances and bad credit. Credit is a scam that is sold to us and used for control. Pay cash it's better.
Report Abuse
magnets | Apr 2, 2010 02:52 PM ET
Laws have been written to declare what is owed and to demand interest and fees as well. Then people can be harassed as long as possible and perhaps additional monies can be obtained.
Unfortunately during the process a lose-lose situation is turned into a lose-lose-win situation. The debtor still loses, the original creditor still loses and the only possible winner is a third-party that wears the debtor and the system down just to collect as much as possible on their original small bet - paid to the original creditor by the third-party.
Report Abuse
magnets | Apr 2, 2010 03:18 PM ET
Let's see, the ADULT in the room should be the judge. Neither Democratic nor Republican judges seem to understand that. (Yes, politics is unfortunately now well embedded in the court system.)
People have no respect for the system. And why should they? They know they owe the debt. They would love to pay off the debt if they could. The reason they have the debt in the first place is because it was easy - not because they could afford it. They assume the judge will be fair. Unfortunately they do not know that the judge demands respect in order to be fair. You have to show up. No wonder people have no respect for the system.
Credit Card companies should raise and lower limits on a monthly basis. 20% usage is OK. 80% usage and the card gets rejected the next time use is attempted. Fixing the problem early might mean the third-party never needs to get involved.
Which would creditors rather have in the economy, people buying things or people paying penalties and fees they can not afford? Politicians should prefer consumers over debt collectors.
Report Abuse
curlqgurl | Apr 2, 2010 04:52 PM ET
I lost my job and offered Captial One 15 percent and $100 per month on a bill of $1300.
THEY REFUSED.
Report Abuse
RayRock. | Apr 2, 2010 04:56 PM ET
Show up and ask to see the original documents that prove a debt exists and that they’re authorized to collect on it. If they cannot do that then ask the judge to order them to compensate you for your time and to find in your favor and order them to cease pursuing the claim and to prohibit them from selling the debt to anyone else. It may or may not work, but it never hurts to ask.
On another note though I see this as just the beginning as soon we’ll see lenders with foreclosed homes on their hands suing those who defaulted. The lenders will scrutinize the loan documents and if there are any lies I expect lenders to sue for fraud and probably file criminal complaints as well in the very near future.
It’s about to get ugly for debtors and it’ll take years for the cases to work their way through the courts.
Report Abuse
RUOK2 | Apr 2, 2010 05:40 PM ET
Very Very Sad, that Banks were bailed out, rescued by the Taxpayers...while the banks then increased interest rates on credit, stop making loans, and play all types of accounting games to make their book look good....and what does the consumer and small business person get....SCREWED......revolt against monster banks like Citi Group , Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase.....Put your money in a local community bank that cares for the community, and WAll Street and stock prices.......Its all very sad...
Report Abuse
gliding | Apr 2, 2010 06:02 PM ET
No court should ever allow usurious interest rates in such cases, whether the defendant shows up or not. More than 10% is questionable. More than 18% is outrageous.
And if the defendant doesn't show up, then the plaintiff should pay the legal and court fees of bringing the suit, for it poses a disincentive for abuse.
Report Abuse
HLJ63 | Apr 2, 2010 06:35 PM ET
Some people think that ignoring the problem will make it all go away, like there is this kind fairy out there who waves a wand and poof! All of your debt is gone. Sorry but that fairy only appears for the Big banks who are able to tuck away their toxic assets and debt as if they don't exist.
Report Abuse
More Comments
« First | « Previous 1 | 2 Next » | Last »
Thank you for joining our discussion. Your comment has been posted.
ADD COMMENTSPlease Sign In or Register to participate.
In order to add a comment you must click here and accept our terms and conditions.Edit Screen Name
Your Comments (Up to 1100 characters):
Please sign-in/optin or register to be able to submit comments.
Remaining characters 1100
CNBC welcomes your contribution. Please respect our community and the integrity of its participants. CNBC reserves the right to moderate and approve your comment.
Sorry, we are no longer accepting comments.PREVIEW COMMENTYour comments have not been posted yet.
Please review your submission to make sure you are comfortable with your entry.
Your Comments:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
